Posted on 08/31/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
The first truth we must find is a way to swallow this - we have exactly the government we elected!
Our Republican President has a public approval rating hovering around 30% and our Democrat congress has an approval rating down around 20%. Clearly, we don’t think much of our government, but we elected them and what does that say about us?
(snip)
In my last column titled “Ron Paul—A Liberal-tarian, not a Conservative," I demonstrated how easy it is to attack any politician on his alleged voting record, demonize an entire group on the basis of a few in that group who are willing to use unethical tactics to promote their allegedly ethical candidate, and cause a firestorm of political banter, both pro and con, without ever really getting to the heart of the subject at hand.
Welcome to American politics circa 2007
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhillcoffeehouse.com ...
Islamic Fundamentalistic Terrorism?
Your own Government?
I make no attempt to respond on behalf of either tpaine or PlainOleAmerican. They can do that for themselves.
I will, however, suggest, that many in America today see a threat from both fronts. And some on the Libertarian side (certainly not all by any means) believe that the threat from Islamic Fundamental Terrorism can be dealt with legally and politically, therefore the threat from our own Government is the more insidious and dangerous one. In this manner, these 'believers' are akin to the 'Truthers' we see on the left.
It’s not either or -— especially if private enterprise builds those power plants, etc. Now, if we could get the government out of the way, there’d be more money for power plants.
See my response #261 to DugwayDuke. There may be some truth to the above, in part because some Libertarians think along these terms, but also because many Truthers see an opportunity of using the Ron Paul campaign to sew dissension within GOP ranks. This doesn't mean these people (Truthers) would vote for Paul in any primary/general election. His candidacy is merely being used. And he's the cause for this happening.
People and/or families have many different concepts of God. Much of the political strife of Europe was based on that fact. -- Our Constitution was designed, in part, to end those religion based differences.
If so, it failed. We still have differences of belief in this country.
Of course we do, -- but we don't allow those differences to be codified into law.
May I suggest that the Constitution wasn't designed, in part, to end the differences in concept of God, but to allow the freedom of religious expression; not the establishment of a government sponsored religion:
Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...".
Nowhere do I read in this a Constitutional role in 'end[ing] those differences'.
Read this part again:
"-- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, --"
Our legislators cannot make laws respecting the precepts/establishments of specific religions. -- And they haven't.. -- The USA is remarkably free of political strife caused by religion based law.
-- the threat from Islamic Fundamental Terrorism can be dealt with legally and politically, therefore the threat from our own Government is the more insidious and dangerous one.
In this manner, these 'believers' are akin to the 'Truthers' we see on the left.
--- many Truthers see an opportunity of using the Ron Paul campaign to sew dissension within GOP ranks. This doesn't mean these people (Truthers) would vote for Paul in any primary/general election. His candidacy is merely being used. And he's the cause for this happening.
Yes indeed the threat from Islamic Fundamental Terrorism can be dealt with legally and politically. So can the threat from our own Rinos, some of whom claim "Truthers" [whoever they are] say our "- Government is the more insidious and dangerous one".
Islamic Fundamentalistic Terrorism?
Your own Government?
See post #265.
I rest my point (made in post #261).
No, I'm saying a “Declaration Of War” IS a notice of intent.
-----
If it does, then how does a “Notice Of Intent” differ from a “Authorization for the Use of Force” Resolution?
Looks to me like you just ventured into a swamp here.
Looks can be deceiving:
From law.com
declaration
n. 1) any statement made, particularly in writing. 2) a written statement made "under penalty of perjury" and signed by the declarant, which is the modern substitute for the more cumbersome affidavit, which requires swearing to its truth before a notary public.
resolution
n. a determination of policy of a corporation by the vote of its board of directors. Legislative bodies also pass resolutions, but they are often statements of policy, belief or appreciation, and not always enactment of statutes or ordinances.
A Declaration of War is a written, sworn testimony that the undersigned parties intend, in truth, to do something. It is a binding affidavit.
A Resolution of Force is a statement, which truthfully, is just an opinion.
-----
For good measure:
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
~James Madison
To declare that the end justifies the means, to declare that the government may commit crimes, would bring terrible retribution.
~Justice Louis D. Brandeis
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~James Madison
We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.
~Benjamin Harrison
The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.
~James Madison
Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
~Abraham Lincoln, Feb. 15, 1848
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
~James Madison
-----
Now...You were saying?
You are exactly right, Ron Paul is being used by the anarchists, the anti-war , the left and other "moon bats." And he's the reason, he's causing this to happen. What's surprising to me is that I'm so mad that he threw away such opportunity and so much potential.
No, its just an opinion with no documentation to bolster its assertion.
A great deal like the no-source wonders that have infested FR.
As I am not tpaine, your point is..... what?
ROFLMAO!
(wiping tears of laughter)
I've given outside sources for almost every post. You, on the other hand have offered.....(crickets) and still have the audacity to consider me constitutionally ignorant?
Your knowledge is obviously not as extensive as your arrogance.
-------
There are two problems with your line of argument. First of all the Constitutional argument. The Congressional Power to declare war is a plenary power, one without limit.
BZZT! The power to declare war is still restrained by the Constitution:
It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws.
FEDERALIST No. 27
(The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered)
Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton says the other clauses limit the authority to declare war.
*******
The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
FEDERALIST No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
James Madison
Madison's statement show the declaratory (general) clauses in the Constitution cannot be applied with out also considering the restrictive (specification) clauses of the Constitution.
-------
Second, the practical argument. By treaty, the US has agreed not to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Check out the Hague and Geneva Conventions of the early 1900.
§ 1171. But the express power "to grant letters of marque and reprisal" may not have been thought wholly unnecessary, because it is often a measure of peace, to prevent the necessity of a resort to war. Thus, individuals of a nation sometimes suffer from the depredations of foreign potentates; and yet it may not be deemed either expedient or necessary to redress such grievances by a general declaration of war. Under such circumstances the law of nations authorizes the sovereign of the injured individual to grant him this mode of redress, whenever justice is denied to him by the state, to which the party, who has done the injury, belongs. In this case the letters of marque and reprisal (words used as synonymous, the latter (reprisal) signifying, a taking in return, the former (letters of marque) the passing the frontiers in order to such taking,) contain an authority to seize the bodies or goods of the subjects of the offending state, wherever they may be found, until satisfaction is made for the injury.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution.
Congress has no authority to dispense of any individual's right of any nature.
The right to reprisal, or remedy of injury, is the right of every freeborn person.
Congress cannot, by law abridge that right, whether by contract, treaty. convention, declaration or resolution.
---------
As opinions without substantiation are just 'hot air', please provide SOURCES for your assertions in the future.
Such as verifiable documentation of your assertion that the authority to declare war is a 'plenary' power of Congress.
I consider Ron Paul a local politician, someone who's age is questionable regarding a presidential run, and who's libertarian credentials give me pause. I'm conservative; both economically and socially. Thus, I'm not fired up about any libertarian. But Ron Paul's stance on the War on Terror and the dogmatic, and patronizing, attitude of his followers here, have made him persona non grata to me.
My candidates? 1) Fred Thompson (he has the curiosity of the masses right now, and is as conservative as anyone we can expect in the top tier. 2) Duncan Hunter is a fine man and a conservative. But he doesn't have a very well-run campaign, doesn't have the name recognition that Fred has, and unless he can make some major moves in the polls has little chance.
I'd be happy with either, but my money is on Fred at this time.
“The Constitution gives Congress explicitly enumerated powers, not unlimited plenary powers.”
Unless you can identify the limitations placed upon the Congressional power to declare war, that power is a plenary power. Read the definition of plenary.
First all, my apologies to you. I addressed the post to you more as a courtesy than a requesting a response.
I consider Ron Paul to be a Lew Rockwell libertarian. He is listed as a contributor to Lew Rockwell and anti-war web sites. If you spend some time on those sites, you’ll find many articles which do propose that the US government is the larger threat. A central theme is that war is the principal tool used by governments to expand their power. Some authors do believe that the US government is not beyond manufacturing a war to expand power. By the way both sites have featured ‘truther’ articles.
Since both a Declaration of War and a Force Authorization clearly state the intention to resolve a dispute by force, they are equivalent.
GRRRREAT article from JB Williams! Thanks for posting.
I've given legal definitions of the terms, shown (and sourced) the Founders intent, yet still you ignore the facts.
-----
The term 'declare war' (not MAKE war) is in the Constitution.
The term 'force authorization' is not.
Therefore, a declaration of war is constitutional, but a force authorization is not.
-------
I also notice that, yet again, you have nothing to bolster your assertion......just an 'I'm right, you're wrong' statement.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.
Congress has limitless power? - BS.
The Constitution gives Congress explicitly enumerated powers, not unlimited plenary powers.
If Congress had endless power, then why would the Framers have bothered to list its powers in the Constitution, one by one?
Since the beginnings of the Republic, arguments have been made, and accepted, that some actions of Congress exceed their delegated powers and are unconstitutional.
Unless you can identify the limitations placed upon the Congressional power to declare war, that power is a plenary power.
The limitations placed on Congressional powers are within the Constitution as Amended.
Our Constitution is designed to place limits on the powers of all levels of all governments in the USA.
The war powers of Congress are not defined in the document as bring unlimited or 'plenary'.
A central theme is that war is the principal tool used by governments to expand their power.
Also a central argument by John Jay in Federalist Article #IV in urging New Yorkers for a vote of approval on the Constitution. Nothing new here. But the use of it is duplicitous.
Some authors do believe that the US government is not beyond manufacturing a war to expand power.
And some believe Elvis is still alive. Or that we went to war with Iraq in order to secure their oil supplies. Insecure, impressionable people will always have their conspiracy theories.
I wasn't aware of Ron Paul's association with anti-war websites. I've supposed his stance against the Iraq conflict without a formal declaration of war was merely an opportunity for anti-war leftists and 'Truthers' to use his campaign for their own purposes. This brings a whole new perspective to the issue.
Thanks for the information. I'll be looking into this to advance my own understanding.
“Your knowledge is obviously not as extensive as your arrogance.”
Excuse me for imagining that you had some basic understandings of the Constitution.
“Such as verifiable documentation of your assertion that the authority to declare war is a ‘plenary’ power of Congress.”
The concept of ‘plenary power’ is basic to an understanding of the Constitution. Here’s a link to Findlaw that provides the legal definition of a plenary power.
Unless you can identify a limitation placed upon Congress in the Constitution, then you must accept that the power to declare war is plenary.
“Madison’s statement show the declaratory (general) clauses in the Constitution cannot be applied with out also considering the restrictive (specification) clauses of the Constitution.”
Please identify the “restrictive (specification) clauses of the Constitution.” that limit the power to declare war.
Here’s another link that you might find interesting since you’ve been quoting Hamiliton:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_11s11.html
This link is to “Alexander Hamilton, The Examination, no. 1”
In this Examination, you’ll find the following quote: “That instrument has only provided affirmatively, that, “The Congress shall have power to declare War;” the plain meaning of which is that, it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress,...”
“Congress has no authority to dispense of any individual’s right of any nature.”
There is nothing in the Constitution identifying, granting, or extending any kind of right to a Letter of Marque or Reprisal. If you think otherwise, then identify the clause.
Any clear reading of the Constitution shows that Congress has the power to grant such a letter but there is no obligation of Congress to grant. At best, receiving such a leter is a priveledge and not a right.
Can you identify another right where Congress must issue a Letter prior to your exercising that right? Do you have to have a Letter of Free Speech? Or a permission slip from Congress to ‘assemble’?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.